Cal athletics: Bears respond to stadium series

Early last week, the Merc published a series of stories detailing Cal’s attempt to finance the renovation of Memorial Stadium and the construction of the high-performance training center.

I researched and wrote the stories over a period of several weeks, then published each on the Hotline. (The main story provides an overview of the situation. There are also three sidebars.)

As noted at the time, the Bears have been extraordinarily transparent about the financing process, including the shortfalls and miscalculations.

Because Cal is a public university, the vast majority of the information used in the series could have been acquired with a formal request for public records (i.e., Freedom of Information Act request).

But I didn’t need to go there; school officials answered all my questions and, if you’re interested, have published much of the relevant data on the Cal athletics website.

In the interest of reciprocal transparency, I wanted to make sure readers are aware that Cal AD Sandy Barbour responded to the series with a letter to the editor that published in the Merc (and online) late last week.

The letter has been cut-and-pasted below. (In case you’re interested, the original can be found here. You have to scroll down. There was another bit of news last week that generated considerable reader response.)

Overall, Jon Wilner’s series on Cal athletics facilities financing (Page 1C, June 25) offered balanced coverage of a complex topic. I appreciate that the reporting made clear we had no choice when it came to retrofitting Memorial Stadium after members of the UC regents directed the campus to either retrofit or move out. It is also worth noting that we examined the possibility of playing elsewhere, but other venues presented disqualifying financial challenges. Simply retrofitting the stadium, without other improvements, certainly would have lowered the price tag.

However, a retrofit-only project could not have been funded through philanthropy, and using state money or student fees was not an option. So, we went beyond a retrofit and improved the facility with new amenities and premium seating that offer value to donors, fans and sponsors and support seat sales through the Endowment Seating Program. Although that program has yet to live up to our expectations, that does not mean it has failed. Seat sales have already generated sufficient funds to cover interest expenses for approximately 20 years, providing us with ample time to assess and, if needed, adjust a much-improved financial model.

Sandy Barbour
Director of athletics UC Berkeley

One note on the letter, to avoid any possible confusion:

When Barbour write that the Bears “have already generated sufficient funds to cover interest expenses for approximately 20 years,” she doesn’t mean Cal has $350 million (approx) in hand.

Rather, she means that the cash currently in the bank ($55 million), when combined with extremely conservative estimates on seat sales and return-on-investments, will produce enough funds to cover the interest payments.